It filed no defence - and the fallout reached the Fair Work Ombudsman
The Fair Work Commission has ordered a discount retailer that never filed a defence to pay a dismissed cashier more than $11,000.
Panda Mart Trading, a discount chain with three large stores in Australia, lost the unfair dismissal case on August 28, 2026 without putting up a defence. It filed no response, did not attend an early conciliation session, and did not appear at the final conference. The Commission can decide a case when an employer stays away, and it did so here on the worker's evidence alone.
The worker was a casual cashier paid $26 an hour in cash. She said she arrived for a shift on December 27, 2025 and heard from a colleague that she had been dismissed. Two supervisors then approached her in the car park and told her to return her uniform. She said no one had raised concerns about her performance or conduct, and that she never received payslips or the extra pay her award required.
Panda Mart made contact once, through an email from its human resources representative. The company said the worker had used a false name and that her visa did not permit her to keep working, and argued there had been “no ‘dismissal’ in the ordinary sense.” The same email accused her of “defamatory statements” and “intimidation and extortion” and said the company would refer her to immigration authorities. The Commissioner found the visa and false-name claims “baseless,” with no evidence to support them.
Working through the factors the law requires, the Commissioner found there was no valid reason for the dismissal, that the worker was never told a reason, and that she was given no chance to respond. The company's size and access to HR support also counted against it. The decision noted Panda Mart operates three large stores in Australia, that its correspondence came from a human resources email address, and that a company contact had directed all communications to its HR representative.
The Commissioner described the company's conduct as “egregious” and said the manner of the dismissal showed a “callous disregard for procedural fairness” and the worker's welfare, noting she was dismissed two days after Christmas and after discussions about relocating interstate for a store that was about to open.
When it came to the payout, reinstatement (getting her old job back) was ruled out because the worker had moved interstate. The Commissioner set lost earnings at $16,965 gross for the period to April 8, 2026, when her visa was due to expire, deducted $1,500 she had earned since, and reduced the balance by 25% for limited efforts to find new work. That produced an order of $11,598.75, plus $1,391.85 in superannuation, to be paid within 14 days.
The Commissioner also asked the Commission's general manager to refer Panda Mart to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the national workplace regulator, pointing to its apparent failure to provide payslips or to pay under the General Retail Industry Award 2020.
For HR teams, the decision is a reminder that the Commission will make findings without an employer that does not take part, that paying cash without payslips can draw a regulator's attention, and that an expiring visa does not remove the need for a valid reason, notice and a chance to respond.
